entertainment

LGBTQ characters on U.S. television at all time high

33 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2019.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

33 Comments
Login to comment

Hollywood is “accepting” LGBTIQ, they’re promoting it.

9 ( +13 / -4 )

GLAAD had called on the TV industry to reach 10% LGBTQ characters by 2020. With that goal already surpassed, the group raised its target and called on the makers of television shows to ensure that 20% of regular characters on prime-time scripted series are LGBTQ by 2025.

They won’t be satisfied until every show is made up of only queer people. There is nothing about “fairness” or “equality” in their agenda. It’s absolute dominion and control. They want to decide what “normal” is.

Disgusting.

8 ( +16 / -8 )

Being LGBT is completely normal. Having non-stereotypical representation is to be applauded.

You can always choose to switch off the telly but we're here to stay. Don't worry, we're pretty much the same as you are. Just haven't always had the opportunities that heterosexuals take for granted.

Hollywood is “accepting” LGBTIQ, they’re promoting it.

Makes a change after all the years promoting heterosexuals. There's room for all of us. We're all normal.

Please don't be scared.

-6 ( +7 / -13 )

I'm fine with it as long as it feels natural. However, there are still quite a few cases where it is painfully obvious that at some point late in the game someone said 'hey we need to check the homosexual box. Quick! Make character A into a (insert LGBTIQ preference)!'. When it's implemented poorly, not only does it hurt the quality of the entertainment, it hurts the move to legitimately implement those characters.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

I'd have to say the pendulum has swung so far that LGBTIQ+ characters are now over-represented in primarily American media. Various studies on households in the US generally agree that 4-5.5% of respondents identify as LGBTIQ+ which puts the figure of 10.2% of characters at twice that found in real life.

There's room for all of us. We're all normal.

Yes. Never any question about that.

The risk the TV/Movie execs risk running is that they continue on this track and less people identify with the characters and stories that they are trying to tell.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

10.2% of all characters? While this group makes up only 2-4% of the population? This means that they are taking up roles at the expense of other demographics.

More inclusive and representative' would make Hollywood actors demographic make up reflect the U.S. as it really is. See below.

Hollywood execs casting Republicans, Christians, Muslims, (in a good light), Latinos, Asians etc as lead actors? This would definitely not be their idea of diversity. Certain 'privileged' groups are over represented in Hollywood while others that make up large sections of society are made to look as if they don't exist.

They are free to cast who they want. Just spare is the claims of 'diversity' and 'inclusiveness'.

Gender:

Female 51

Male 49

Race:

White 60%

Latino 18

Black 13

Asian 6

Other: 3

Religion:

Christian 69

Unaffiliated 24

Judaism 2

Islam 1 

Buddhism 1

Hinduism 1

Other religions 1

Unnkown 1

Political persuasion:

Democrat 48

Republican 46

Other 6

Sexuality:

Straight 97

LGBTQ 3

5 ( +11 / -6 )

Getting rid of TV 20 years ago was the best thing we've done.

You get so much more done without it and you're not subjected to this kind of mind control.

11 ( +14 / -3 )

 Certain 'privileged' groups are over represented in Hollywood 

Like white, straight males?

It's fine. I admire the films of Clint Eastwood, Kurt Russell, John Malkovich, Arnold Schwarznegger, James Woods etc. Even if their personal politics don't win me over.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

 However, there are still quite a few cases where it is painfully obvious that at some point late in the game someone said 'hey we need to check the homosexual box. Quick! Make character A into a (insert LGBTIQ preference)!'. When it's implemented poorly, not only does it hurt the quality of the entertainment, it hurts the move to legitimately implement those characters.

I know. When I think of all those heterosexual characters being played wrongly over the years, from I love Lucy to any number of cop shows and cowboy films ...

As to the portrayal of LGBT characters that aren't done wrongly, I'd nominate Rose Leslie's character in The Good Fight. Her sexuality is not the driving force behind her story arc. Although, (SPOILER ALERT) I find it hard to sympathise with someone who may or may not have known about Ponzi schemes...

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Like white, straight males?

White privilege is fast becoming a myth. Case in point: it's now socially acceptable, almost expected, to be bigoted towards white people in the US, especially straight, white men.

This coming from so-called "tolerant" "progressives". Practice what you preach, and all that jazz.

If it's not OK to be racist, sexist, etc. then that applies to everyone.

6 ( +12 / -6 )

As long as there is a good story that I find interesting, I really don't care about demographics or "representation" quotas.

I like that roles are showing different angles than what has been presented previously. New is often interesting.

White privilege definitely still exists, not just in the USA but in parts of central Asia, South America and Africa too.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

The TV was never there for proportional representation. What it has always done is represent the popular moods and themes of the times. And that is exactly what its doing and there is zero surprise here.

But as far as the population guesstimates go, the real numbers of LGTBQ etc. people might be higher than usually cited. Plenty of people are hiding their sexual identities and kicks even today because the thin-skinned and nail biting people among us simply cannot handle the truth.

Its also worth saying that even a cursory glance at television and film will reveal that LGBTQ people have already been massively proportionately over-represented providing us the best entertainment from the beginning. If only straight people were behind TV and movies they might never have taken off as such a widely used medium!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

 I'd nominate Rose Leslie's character in The Good Fight. Her sexuality is not the driving force behind her story arc.

But actually I found myself wondering WHY she had to be a lesbian.Coulda been a straight female playing her role.It was a move for the letter support in casting her as one.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

extankerToday 08:32 am JSTI'm fine with it as long as it feels natural. However, there are still quite a few cases where it is painfully obvious that at some point late in the game someone said 'hey we need to check the homosexual box. Quick! Make character A into a (insert LGBTIQ preference)!'. When it's implemented poorly, not only does it hurt the quality of the entertainment, it hurts the move to legitimately implement those characters.

theFuToday 12:13 pm JSTAs long as there is a good story that I find interesting, I really don't care about demographics or "representation" quotas.

I like that roles are showing different angles than what has been presented previously. New is often interesting.

White privilege definitely still exists, not just in the USA but in parts of central Asia, South America and Africa too.

I have nothing against having diversity in TV programming, but far too many times we have 'token' characters of a minority race, color, etc. just to be 'doing it', but the real problem is that these minority characters are too often stereotypical. They are wooden characters and not true representatives of these people groups, and too often they are buffoonish. Most GLBT, Black, Asian, etc. people I've known and met in my life are in no way like the images we see on the screen. On top of that, they cue us to accept these stupid depictions with canned laugh tracks. Having more diverse characters, let alone GLBT ones do not necessarily make better stories.

We need better quality original entertainment. Hollywood needs to grow brains and start being inspiring again.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

actually I found myself wondering WHY she had to be a lesbian.

Why do you assume she had to be, rather than that someone just wanted to make the character that way.

And why would an actor/actress need to play characters of their own sexuality? The whole point of actors is that they are pretending to be something. Why would they suddenly have to not be pretending when it comes to sexuality?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Why do you assume she had to be, rather than that someone just wanted to make the character that way.

Well,maybe you're right.Someone just wanted to make the character that way... to draw in viewers.Television programming is a business and that was a business move.
0 ( +1 / -1 )

Hollywood is “accepting” LGBTIQ, they’re promoting it.

Good.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

White privilege is fast becoming a myth. Case in point: it's now socially acceptable, almost expected, to be bigoted towards white people in the US, especially straight, white men.

[Citation needed]

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

The right: Heh, stupid libs. Entertainment is a money making business. You don't see minorities because they don't make money.

Entertainment business: Oh, we can make more money if we make shows and films about minorities!

The right: I Can't Believe This, How Could They.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Well,maybe you're right.Someone just wanted to make the character that way... to draw in viewers

Or maybe the person was a lesbian and writing to what she knew. Or maybe the person was just a creative who was giving the character some background. Or maybe whatever.

Your convulse that it was a business decision is another possibility, but you’re silly if you think that can be concluded from the information we have.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Hollywood is “accepting” LGBTIQ, they’re promoting it.

Dunno about 'promoting' or 'pushing' any agenda tbh. Imo Hollywood and most mainstream media have no 'social' conscience, it's all about the money, viewership etc. If tmrw millions of ppl want to watch Lassie or a fish in a bowl they'll give you/us lassie &co. Look at what happened on the w-e with the logan paul vs ksi fight, even the once highly respected bbc were talking/tweeting (and probably broadcasting, not too sure) about it!!! They're not 'pushing' anything, just cashing in on ppl's stupidity, laziness and lack of intellectual curiosity.

Re tv series, i reckon we've reached the point where pretty much everything's been done hence today's over-representation of lgbt ppl/characters in modern tv series; they do bring something new/different, i guess.

Agree with others though, pretty much all new tv series seem to take the now predictable diversity/lgbt/multi whatever path; currently watching Designated Survivor season 3 and we've got a couple of gay dudes (blacks, 2 birds/one stone), a trans woman, an older woman banging young guys (like 60/20) etc and obviously all other 'minorities'. Was the same with Billions (i usually lose interest during season 3-4; euro series not there yet imo, less stereotyping & need to please/represent everyone).

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

White privilege is fast becoming a myth. Case in point: it's now socially acceptable, almost expected, to be bigoted towards white people in the US, especially straight, white men.

This coming from so-called "tolerant" "progressives". Practice what you preach, and all that jazz.

If it's not OK to be racist, sexist, etc. then that applies to everyone.

Bingo!

0 ( +4 / -4 )

@Starpunk

Hollywood needs to grow brains and start being inspiring again.

Hollywood completely lost the plot decades ago. Gone are days of great classic TV and movies. 99% of Hollywood productions now is trash for the brain dead.

The entertainment industry is terminally infected with greedy, money first, promoters of violence, perversion, shallowness, materialism, condescending attitudes towards conservative and religious people, and all manner of filth and trash.

I'm happy to watch the very few good productions and really appreciate those, the rest I completely ignore.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The entertainment industry is terminally infected with greedy, money first, promoters of violence, perversion, shallowness, materialism, condescending attitudes towards conservative and religious people, and all manner of filth and trash.

Sounds like a Trump rally if you change ‘conservative’ for ‘liberal’ and specify ‘Muslim’ rather than ‘religious’.

How about the hatred and trash coming from the religious towards people they don’t tolerate?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I'm fine with LGBQ characters if they fit in the story. Billions has a good example of well done character whose sexual orientation either adds to the plot or more often takes a back seat and doesn't matter.

I do feel like a lot of shows on Netflix over the last year are pushing an agenda though with characters who don't fit in the story and don't have any purpose or personality other than their orientation. It's not a big deal but it's points off the shows' entertainment value.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Schit's Creek is my best one.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

White privilege is fast becoming a myth. Case in point: it's now socially acceptable, almost expected, to be bigoted towards white people in the US, especially straight, white men.

What?????

There may be a few progressives going overboard but it doesn't match up to the racism that still exists in many parts of US.

There's a lot more lesbian content than male gay because it titillates the viewers, show business produces what it can sell.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Hollywood completely lost the plot decades ago. Gone are days of great classic TV and movies. 99% of Hollywood productions now is trash for the brain dead.

They've never had 'the plot,' that's just a fallacy created by years and years of filter. See this: https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/574580/100-years-movie-remakes

The 'Golden Age of Hollywood' wasn't filled with directors and studios pumping out unique story after unique story... they were rehashing the same tripe they'd done before! The book 1984 has been made into a movie no less than 3 times, Anna Karennina has been made into a movie 7 times, etc.

The reason so many people thing there was a thing such as the 'Golden Age' is two reasons. One: Nostalgia. Just like how we remember the music of our youth as being the 'good stuff' while everything since we turned 21 or so is trash, so it is with movies.

Second, and bigger: the filter of time. From my youth, we remember The Breakfast Club, we remember The Terminator and other so-called 'classic' movies, or Hill Street Blues and Airwolf or other shows. What we don't remember were the turkeys, the pap filler that still took up 85% of the screens but have been lost due to the filter of time, relegated to some studio storage bin and a few people's basements where they gather dust as VHS tapes.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Hollywood is “accepting” LGBTIQ, they’re promoting it.

What does it even mean to "promote" LGBTQ? Is this a claim that straight people are going to be miraculously "turned" or is it a claim that there is a push for others to be more tolerant of non-straight people?

Is the worry that some people will try something LGBTQ and then realize its not for them? Is trying some sort of harm? I really don't understand this claim or concern about "promoting". It just sounds like fear mongering for the sake of enjoying the panic and the trolling.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Confuse young ones even more.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Hopefully, today's all-time high is THE all-time high.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

I know. When I think of all those heterosexual characters being played wrongly over the years, from I love Lucy to any number of cop shows and cowboy films ...

So you're telling me that you've never seen a show where a gay character is obviously misplaced and/or poorly executed?

I mean, if you're ok with pandering and don't care how well a homosexual character is played or how ill fitting to the story it is, as long as its got an LGBTQ character, that's your opinion and that's fine. But to say that every time a gay character comes on screen is perfect for the story and not pandering is disingenuous.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Confuse young ones even more.

I find that a strange comment since America's statistic busting problems with young people have always stemmed from the attempt to keep them in ignorance of sexuality.

The 'Golden Age of Hollywood' wasn't filled with directors and studios pumping out unique story after unique story... they were rehashing the same tripe they'd done before!

With bigger and better sets, varied and international filming locations, large numbers of human and animal extras to fit the story, great actors and actresses doing credit to the story and just being enjoyable to watch, great camerawork, improvements in filming technology, no expenses spared in acquiring and using real or realistic props such as wagons, chariots and airplanes, etc. There are lots of reasons why it was called the Golden Age of Hollywood and I never heard anyone claim it was for unique stories.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites